#111
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:56:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/19/2019 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists. Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about 2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo accidents. The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light mounted on the hub bolts. Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one ride differently. Indeed. On the desk in front of me, I have a very similar study on bicyclist conspicuity: Lahrmann, et. al. "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents," Safety Science v. 108 pp. 209-217. They compared a 3402 riders who were given bright yellow jacket with some refective stripes, vs. a control group of 3391 cyclists. Yep, the riders in yellow jackets had less "personal injury crashes" all right. But again, they were also less likely to have "single party crashes." IOW, wearing a yellow jacket apparently helps your balance! To work the numbers a bit differently than usual, I used their percentages to illustrate what would happen with 10,000 cyclists with and without magic jackets. Within a year, of the 10,000 without jackets, 280 will fall off their bike and 240 will run into a pedestrian, other bike, or car. Of those with the magic jacket, 240 will just fall and 130 will run into a ped, bike or car. So for 10,000 cyclists the difference is 150 crashes. But some of those benefits are not real, since a jacket isn't likely to affect a solo crash. Maybe the real difference would be 125, as a guess? 125 out of 10,000. That's 1.25% benefit to the magic jacket. Surely it's time to mandate them! Yet a day or so earlier I came across a study that showed that attire had no effect except for a vest that said "POLICE" which did have a profound effect on motorists behavior :-) I also came across a study that demonstrated that autos passed closer to riders wearing a helmet https://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm and yet another study that says "Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker, 2007". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/ Note that the same study seems to have been used to prove that helmets do, and do not, effect passing distance. A good friend who owned a financial studies company that specialized in doing feasibility studies once commented that it was "easy" to design a study to prove whatever the client wanted proved :-) Which makes one wonder how many of the "studies" simply prove preconceived concepts. The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
incredulous wrote:
No, motorcycles, scooters, ebikes, bikes, pedestrians and trikes all have in common small apparent object sizes compared to automobiles and trucks. I’m not current on effective conspicuity research. On crash research, I respect, FK, that you refer to it, but as someone who did road safety research in the past, I’m aware of challenging differential selection problems, much greater now that ER care is so damned expensive. Getting back to Subject, I doubt that steady DRLs of either kind do much good for bicyclists. It depends on the traffic and visual environment. Much of any conspicuity effect possibly attributable to a bicycle DRL is already being taken care of by sensor-switched bicycle lamps that, unless aimed too low, do a sufficient job of marking the vehicle's front in dawn, dusk, and tree/forest situations, when uneducated or unsuspecting riders are not aware they can see much clearer than a windshield-impaired cager or a vizor wearer. It may be worth pointing out for young ones that for motorcycles, running lights were for use in German cities at night instead of headlights in an era before motorcycles or scooters had turn signals which could be steadily lit as Americans called ‘parking lights.’ My BMW R26 had a small 5w bulb in the bottom of and illuminating the 175mm headlight cone. Checking (then contemporary) StVO paragraph 23, I doubt these were officially meant for anything other than standlights / position / parking lights in stationary use due to lack of generator power / battery capacity. Driving with just position lights illuminated has been illegal in Europe for quite a while, though it might still rarely get ticketed. The position light regulation applied in recent decades would be UNECE Regulation #7, stipulating a 4cd minimum (sic! -- and a 140cd maximum) on-axis intensity. Whereas DRL intensity in UNECE DRL Regulation #87 is 400..1500cd or so on axis, and commonly higher luminance than a traditional 5W, 50lm position light's incandescent bulb mildly glowing away behind scattering optics. So, without looking up 1950's technical by-regulations, I'd assume the domestic-market BMW R26's position light was not putting out close to 140cd into most angles, twice the bicycle-specific 70cd glare-zone maximum permittable in outdated former versions of StVZO (now 200cd) and ISO. IOW they were the functional equivalent of what marketers of low light output bicycle lamps sell for lit urban streets at night, ‘to-be-seen lights’. In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!" |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 20/04/2019 12.30, Sepp Ruf wrote:
snip In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!" LOL! You're wasted here, consider a job in marketing :-) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2019 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists. Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about 2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo accidents. The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light mounted on the hub bolts. Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one ride differently. Indeed. On the desk in front of me, I have a very similar study on bicyclist conspicuity: Lahrmann, et. al. "The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents," Safety Science v. 108 pp. 209-217. They compared a 3402 riders who were given bright yellow jacket with some refective stripes, vs. a control group of 3391 cyclists. Yep, the riders in yellow jackets had less "personal injury crashes" all right. But again, they were also less likely to have "single party crashes." IOW, wearing a yellow jacket apparently helps your balance! To work the numbers a bit differently than usual, I used their percentages to illustrate what would happen with 10,000 cyclists with and without magic jackets. Within a year, of the 10,000 without jackets, 280 will fall off their bike and 240 will run into a pedestrian, other bike, or car. Of those with the magic jacket, 240 will just fall and 130 will run into a ped, bike or car. So for 10,000 cyclists the difference is 150 crashes. But some of those benefits are not real, since a jacket isn't likely to affect a solo crash. Maybe the real difference would be 125, as a guess? 125 out of 10,000. That's 1.25% benefit to the magic jacket. You're wanking in the dark again, Franki-boy. 1.25% over whatever period this study ran, repeated forever, can easily be presented as a 100% benefit. Surely it's time to mandate them! If these figures you're throwing around have any reality, damn right it is time to mandate yellow jackets for luddites. It would be criminal of your legislators not to. - Frank Krygowski It's time, Franki-boy, to admit you don't know the first thing about statistics, and don't have too much in the brains department either, if you cannot even see such a gaping chasm in your illogic. Andre Jute. What comes round, comes round, and soon adds up to something. It's called compounding. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:38:33 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 20/04/2019 12.30, Sepp Ruf wrote: snip In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!" LOL! You're wasted here, consider a job in marketing :-) Heh-heh. The Trading Standards Authority would put him in jail. Still, in the last ten years bicycle lamps, despite lamentations that they still aren't as good as theycould be and should be, have come a tremendous way. Andre Jute The glass is half full |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it. -- Cheers, John B. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it. -- Cheers, John B. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. This from a guy with a religious belief in daytime running lights, even "flea powered" ones, and a religious belief in magic plastic hats. A man who constantly touts "countless studies" but can't be bothered to post links to them. A man who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to be a "world's greatest expert" on multiple matters - helmets, lights, folding bikes, coffee... And who bragged online about his "guerilla marketing" via various discussion groups, at his websites which said "If you buy the items I recommend, please start by clicking the links here so I get my commission" or words to that effect. - Frank Krygowski |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:39:59 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. No, I didn't find a minor flaw... I simply stated what had been reported in the Odense study, that the tiny little lights not only decreased the rate of multi vehicle accidents but also decreased the number of solo accidents. By a factor of about 30%. Isn't it amazing? That those tiny little lights could decrease the number of solo accidents and it might be added that it not only reduced the numbers of solo accidents but it also reduced the percent injured in these solo accidents from 82% to 79%. , admittedly a small percentage but a reduction never the less. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. Although you make a convincing argument it just isn't, as usual with your statements, correct. As I've noted before you stand up straight with your head erect and speak in a loud and profound voice... and ignore facts. I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road, miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has it. But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title, and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's content) as you so obviously do. Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it. -- Cheers, John B. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. | Lou Holtman[_7_] | Techniques | 10 | December 24th 14 04:03 AM |
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux | Danny Colyer | UK | 3 | January 14th 09 07:21 PM |
Edelux - Wow! | Danny Colyer | UK | 10 | November 25th 08 10:05 PM |
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? | none | UK | 5 | May 27th 08 06:03 PM |